<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Q4 2014 &#038; Q1 2015 Quick Links Part 7 (Consumer Reviews, RTBF, Defamation, Censorship, Sec. 230)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/04/q4-2014-q1-2015-quick-links-part-7-consumer-reviews-rtbf-defamation-censorship-sec-230.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/04/q4-2014-q1-2015-quick-links-part-7-consumer-reviews-rtbf-defamation-censorship-sec-230.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:47:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: curtisneeley		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/04/q4-2014-q1-2015-quick-links-part-7-consumer-reviews-rtbf-defamation-censorship-sec-230.htm#comment-1278</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[curtisneeley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=14127#comment-1278</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[ALL &lt;i&gt;American&lt;/i&gt; lawyers were wholly confused by a simple, intentionally, disparaging spelling error in 1790. This &lt;i&gt;American&lt;/i&gt; mistake at law is too obvious to ignore here.

&lt;b&gt;International Censorship&lt;/b&gt;
.... has always existed because &lt;i&gt;America&lt;/i&gt; created an imaginary new medium in 1997 and told the federal agency responsible for &lt;i&gt;American&lt;/i&gt; censorship of joint radio and wire medium broadcasting(s) (disguised as an imaginary new medium) this 
mysterious new medium was entitled to absolute unqualified free speech. The &lt;i&gt;Reno v ACLU&lt;/i&gt; ruling was moronic and void on June 26, 1997, when made, but still keeps pornography flowing freely in &lt;i&gt;America&lt;/i&gt;. This is why China build the
Great Firewall and is why &lt;i&gt;American&lt;/i&gt; search engines respond differently based on IP geolocations of requests for queries like mentioned as blocking in a previous post. This comment will return to this law mistake later.

&lt;b&gt;Right to Be Forgotten&lt;/b&gt;
The absolute, natural, human right to control repetition of personal information was protected in England first in 1734 and was first called copyright in 1766 by Sir William Blackstone in Volume II &quot;&lt;i&gt;Rights of Things&lt;/i&gt;&quot; on page 406 with footnotes L and M referring to usage of &quot;copy-right&quot; in prior English rulings. This twenty-sixth chapter first usage of copyright for exclusive control of original communications was in the &quot;&lt;i&gt;Commentaries on the Laws of England&lt;/i&gt; law book series still taught in ALL &lt;i&gt;American&lt;/i&gt; law schools today! Though used by an English &quot;Kings Counsel and Sergeant of Law&quot; in an authoritative legal text; the coining of the term &quot;copyright&quot; occurred in 1766 and could not be placed in Johnston&#039;s 1755 dictionary used in 1787 for composition of the United States Constitution.

&lt;b&gt;The SPLIT!&lt;/b&gt;
This was where &lt;i&gt;American&lt;/i&gt; and European protection for human rights and free speech parted ways forever! This is why &lt;i&gt;Garcia v Google&lt;/i&gt; confused &lt;i&gt;American&lt;/i&gt; lawyers so badly including the noted law &quot;professor&quot; running this BLOG.

&lt;b&gt;Section 230 MISTAKE at LAW&lt;/b&gt; 
&lt;i&gt;America&#039;s&lt;/i&gt; Supreme Court wholly misinterpreted the CDA on June 26, 1997 and turned the law Congress wrote to protect the decency of communications and protect ISPs from liability for communications they delivered but did not make. &lt;i&gt;American&lt;/i&gt; laws protected telephone companies from acquiring liability for the
content of communications they delivered with rare exceptions like ignoring the do not call list. 

&lt;b&gt;EXCLUSIVE ISP LAW  before rewritten by U.S. Courts&lt;/b&gt;
ISPs had no reason to inspect the communications they delivered as a result of Section 230 exemption from liability. The Supreme Court wholly misinterpreted the CDA on June 26, 1997 and created the legal foundations for wholly unregulated free speech by twisting the protections for &quot;good Samaritans&quot; who labeled or blocked
indecent content into the &lt;i&gt;Section 230&lt;b&gt; MISTAKE at LAW&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; excusing search engines for broadcasting obscene, indecent or profane communications the &quot;good Samaritan&quot; authors or publishers attempted to prevent from illegally and
dishonorably broadcasting to the unauthenticated public.

&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;America&#039;s&lt;/i&gt; defamation, slander copy[rite] BAND-AIDs &lt;/b&gt;
The ability to limit electronic communications access was protected by U.S. law clearly till this commentator personally offended the current ruling judicial oligarchy. &lt;i&gt;America&#039;s&lt;/i&gt; defamation, slander and copy[rite] BAND-AIDs are not able to protect the honor of this nation&#039;s judicial branch today from bleeding out after the &lt;i&gt;Garcia v Google&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al&lt;/i&gt; became  amputations of justice made or encouraged for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits today.  These will each be presented to the Supreme Court within 90 days but  BAND-AIDs will not be adequate for the &lt;i&gt;Reno v ACLU&lt;/i&gt; evisceration of
law and the amputated human right to control reproduction of original creations ignored due to intentional misspelling in the U.S. since the May 31, 1790 but protected in England since 1734.

&lt;b&gt;WAKE UP &lt;i&gt;AMERICA&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
ALL Title II usage of &quot;nternet&quot; communications is NOTHING besides wire communications defined in 1934 whether delivered by Wi-Fi or mobile phone apparatus for the last few miles back to the wires that allow terrestrial communications to travel beyond line of site by radio. EVERY &quot;obscene, indecent, or profane&quot; communication accessible by &quot;nternet&quot; is illegally broadcast to the unsuspecting unauthenticated public by radio in violation of U.S. law.
&lt;b&gt;WAKE UP &lt;i&gt;AMERICA&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;WAKE UP &lt;i&gt;AMERICA&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ALL <i>American</i> lawyers were wholly confused by a simple, intentionally, disparaging spelling error in 1790. This <i>American</i> mistake at law is too obvious to ignore here.</p>
<p><b>International Censorship</b><br />
&#8230;. has always existed because <i>America</i> created an imaginary new medium in 1997 and told the federal agency responsible for <i>American</i> censorship of joint radio and wire medium broadcasting(s) (disguised as an imaginary new medium) this<br />
mysterious new medium was entitled to absolute unqualified free speech. The <i>Reno v ACLU</i> ruling was moronic and void on June 26, 1997, when made, but still keeps pornography flowing freely in <i>America</i>. This is why China build the<br />
Great Firewall and is why <i>American</i> search engines respond differently based on IP geolocations of requests for queries like mentioned as blocking in a previous post. This comment will return to this law mistake later.</p>
<p><b>Right to Be Forgotten</b><br />
The absolute, natural, human right to control repetition of personal information was protected in England first in 1734 and was first called copyright in 1766 by Sir William Blackstone in Volume II &#8220;<i>Rights of Things</i>&#8221; on page 406 with footnotes L and M referring to usage of &#8220;copy-right&#8221; in prior English rulings. This twenty-sixth chapter first usage of copyright for exclusive control of original communications was in the &#8220;<i>Commentaries on the Laws of England</i> law book series still taught in ALL <i>American</i> law schools today! Though used by an English &#8220;Kings Counsel and Sergeant of Law&#8221; in an authoritative legal text; the coining of the term &#8220;copyright&#8221; occurred in 1766 and could not be placed in Johnston&#8217;s 1755 dictionary used in 1787 for composition of the United States Constitution.</p>
<p><b>The SPLIT!</b><br />
This was where <i>American</i> and European protection for human rights and free speech parted ways forever! This is why <i>Garcia v Google</i> confused <i>American</i> lawyers so badly including the noted law &#8220;professor&#8221; running this BLOG.</p>
<p><b>Section 230 MISTAKE at LAW</b><br />
<i>America&#8217;s</i> Supreme Court wholly misinterpreted the CDA on June 26, 1997 and turned the law Congress wrote to protect the decency of communications and protect ISPs from liability for communications they delivered but did not make. <i>American</i> laws protected telephone companies from acquiring liability for the<br />
content of communications they delivered with rare exceptions like ignoring the do not call list. </p>
<p><b>EXCLUSIVE ISP LAW  before rewritten by U.S. Courts</b><br />
ISPs had no reason to inspect the communications they delivered as a result of Section 230 exemption from liability. The Supreme Court wholly misinterpreted the CDA on June 26, 1997 and created the legal foundations for wholly unregulated free speech by twisting the protections for &#8220;good Samaritans&#8221; who labeled or blocked<br />
indecent content into the <i>Section 230<b> MISTAKE at LAW</b></i> excusing search engines for broadcasting obscene, indecent or profane communications the &#8220;good Samaritan&#8221; authors or publishers attempted to prevent from illegally and<br />
dishonorably broadcasting to the unauthenticated public.</p>
<p><b><i>America&#8217;s</i> defamation, slander copy[rite] BAND-AIDs </b><br />
The ability to limit electronic communications access was protected by U.S. law clearly till this commentator personally offended the current ruling judicial oligarchy. <i>America&#8217;s</i> defamation, slander and copy[rite] BAND-AIDs are not able to protect the honor of this nation&#8217;s judicial branch today from bleeding out after the <i>Garcia v Google</i> and <i>Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al</i> became  amputations of justice made or encouraged for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits today.  These will each be presented to the Supreme Court within 90 days but  BAND-AIDs will not be adequate for the <i>Reno v ACLU</i> evisceration of<br />
law and the amputated human right to control reproduction of original creations ignored due to intentional misspelling in the U.S. since the May 31, 1790 but protected in England since 1734.</p>
<p><b>WAKE UP <i>AMERICA</i></b><br />
ALL Title II usage of &#8220;nternet&#8221; communications is NOTHING besides wire communications defined in 1934 whether delivered by Wi-Fi or mobile phone apparatus for the last few miles back to the wires that allow terrestrial communications to travel beyond line of site by radio. EVERY &#8220;obscene, indecent, or profane&#8221; communication accessible by &#8220;nternet&#8221; is illegally broadcast to the unsuspecting unauthenticated public by radio in violation of U.S. law.<br />
<b>WAKE UP <i>AMERICA</i></b> <b>WAKE UP <i>AMERICA</i></b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
